I get it, as cartoonish as it is, it really pushed the limit, but at the same time I don't think it's meant to be degrading. I'm 1/4 Irish, not once have I thought that Notre Dame needs to make a change. I wish that as a society we tried to take things as they are intended, not as we twist them to be.
Weren't the Indians renamed as such after Louis Sockalexis who was a native American from Maine? They were originally the spiders or something but they renamed to honor him?? Can someone corroborate my story or maybe correct it?

I get it, as cartoonish as it is, it really pushed the limit, but at the same time I don't think it's meant to be degrading. I'm 1/4 Irish, not once have I thought that Notre Dame needs to make a change. I wish that as a society we tried to take things as they are intended, not as we twist them to be.
Weren't the Indians renamed as such after Louis Sockalexis who was a native American from Maine? They were originally the spiders or something but they renamed to honor him?? Can someone corroborate my story or maybe correct it?

That's been floated around for years but I don't think there is any truth to it. The contemporary papers don't mention anything about Sockalexis when the change was made. As for the name, I couldn't care less. I'm Cherokee and Choctaw. My wife is Cherokee and Creek. Neither of us care or find it offensive. I've never met a Cherokee tribal member, and I live in the capital of the Cherokee Nation, that has ever mentioned being offended by a sports teams name or logo.

Yea, I just turned 40, and this world is completely getting to be 2 much. Everyone is offended by everything. I never thought of the Indians logo as degrading the Native American people. Never did I see that logo, and think negative thoughts about Indians, or make fun of them. But then again, my friends call me cracker or cracker ass. What do I know

Are large groups of Native Americans actually demanding the Indians to change their logo? (in which case a change would be justified)

Or is it a vocal minority of overly sensitive, mostly non-native American social justice warriors on social media complaining?

This and only this. I read a poll last year about Native Americans polled about changing sports teams names and it was something like 95% of them were not offended and did not care about what names the teams used.

Boredom kills, and those it does not kill, it cripples, and those it does not cripple, it bleeds like a leech, leaving its victims pale, insipid and brooding. B. Harden

Honestly, it's pathetic. There are more important issues that are not only plaguing baseball, but the nation as a whole and here we're worried about a cartoonish looking Indian head. Today's world is a very scary place if companies and organizations are browbeaten into submission because something might be deemed "offensive" by someone. How about the name "Indians"? Isn't that technically "offensive" if we're going to set the logo as a precedent? How about the Atlanta Braves? That tomahawk logo should be "offensive" too. Guess what Washington Redskins. You're toast too at this rate. Cleveland Browns? That might be racially insensitive. Dallas Cowboys? Those evil cowboys oppressed Indian folks, so yeah that has to go too. The list can go on and on. Where is that line in the sand drawn?

“(S)ecretly everybody’s getting tired of political correctness, kissing up. That’s the kiss-ass generation we’re in right now. We’re really in a pussy generation. Everybody’s walking on eggshells. We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren’t called racist. And then when I did Gran Torino, even my associate said, ‘This is a really good script, but it’s politically incorrect.’ And I said, ‘Good. Let me read it tonight.’ The next morning, I came in and I threw it on his desk and I said, ‘We’re starting this immediately.’”

Clint Eastwood-2016.

P.S.
The video of that interview has been taken off the internet.

I guess what they want you to hear and see, is what they want you to hear and see.

The whole "being offended" thing is tough to understand. On the one hand, yes, it does seem that people are too easily offended these days, and, I usually have a Bill Burr-like reaction to it. But on the other, it's refusing to sympathize with minorities, no matter how amorphously defined they are or how new they might seem, that leads to conflict. It's easy to say,"It's just a mascot," or "It's a tribute," or "It's historical," as if that gives the argument equal weight to some deep-seated emotions borne out of generations of abuse. But of all the people saying,"I don't see why it's offensive," how many of you are part of the subjected group? If you're a white, hetero male of Anglo-Saxon descent, which I imagine is the large majority of board users, there's no reason why you would understand why someone would be offended. I mean, I think the Chief Wahoo logo is pretty clearly not an honorific design, despite what white fans claim. But some also say the name "Braves" is offensive. I don't think the word "brave" is offensive, nor would using it as a title or descriptive be pejorative. But since I'm not a Native American, it is out of my experience, so who am I to say whether or not they "should" be offended?

Which one of these is not like the others?
If one is different from the others, I'd like to hear cogent explanations as to why you think that is.

That Eastwood video is not hard to find, found about 15 different copies in a few seconds looking, so, no, no one is trying to hide it.

Anyways, I'm sure people said all the same things when companies stopped using crudely drawn fried chicken eating caricatures of African-Americans in ads to sell ovens and coffee. And America survived just fine.